Talk:Democratic Underground/Archive 5

Archived Previous Discussion

Most of the discussion (and ill-will) is now mooted by the changes to WP:EL, so I archived it so we can put it behind us. This is a blank page. let's make the most of it! BenBurch 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

I changed this:

• While supporters of Ralph Nader are a minority at DU, many posts criticize the Democratic Party from the left. Democrats such as Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein, who are more inclined toward compromise and conciliation with the Bush Administration, are regularly attacked at DU, while Democrats such as John Conyers and Barbara Boxer, who favor a more confrontational approach, are more highly regarded.

to this:

• While supporters of revolutionary-left are a tiny minority at DU, many posts do criticize the centrist and conservative factions within the party, such the DLC. Democrats such as Joe Lieberman and others who endorsed the War on Iraq or embrace conservative ideology and corporatism are regularly criticized at DU, while Democrats such as John Conyers, Barbara Boxer and Dennis Kucinich who embrace more progressive ideology are not.

Thoughts? - F.A.A.F.A. 23:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is not meant to say that Nader is "revlutionary left". He hasn't been revolutionary, or particularly left, in many, many years. - Che Nuevara 23:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No not at all. I wanted to change 'Nader supporters', because that was such a narrow class - especially in the last couple years. This isn't June 2000 with legions of Nader lovers. I'm open to rewrites - my main problem was that it argued that DUers supported certain dems based on how much they support or oppose bush. They support people based on their Ideology, and how they support or oppose bush's neoconservative + corporatist policies. If Tom Delay were Pres ( God help us) they might oppose his policy even more. Some FAR-Far righties oppose bush as much as the left, but DU would not embrace them.- F.A.A.F.A. 00:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Not true... LOTS of people hate on Dennis Kucinich and his supporters at DU. I know this first hand as I used to be one of those supporters there.--BenBurch 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you give it a rewrite Ben? I just wanted to change the support / oppose bush aspect. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but we shouldnt be saying a majority or minority at DU oppose or support anything unless DU held a poll or something, or an outside WP:RS source stated it. --NuclearZer0 00:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not wrong.--BenBurch 00:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And it doesn't. It says the revolutionary left are a tiny minority. I was going to use 'far-left' but I thought people might object, as many Cons seem to think all of DU is far left. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is we shouldn't be making an assumption about what peoples beliefs are on DU or stating there is a majority/minority of opinions there without DU releasing some kinda poll results or a WP:RS stating it. For instance who would you cite that back to? --NuclearZer0 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I struck the paragraph.--BenBurch 01:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A rewrite

I am not happy with this paragraph - it's just not true:

• Democratic Underground has been criticized for censorship directed against both the political left and the right. From the left, critics say that administrators and moderators unfairly ban ("tombstone") or censor posters who consider themselves to be to the political left of John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for the US presidency, and claim that DU is not truly liberal or progressive, but rather centrist, and adheres too strongly to the politics of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

1)It WAS true in 04 when Kerry was the Democratic Presidential nominee, and people were openly encouraging others to vote Green, Peace and Freedom or urging a write-in vote as protest, but no longer. The last few DU 08 polls I've seen favored Gore (who's considered left of Kerry) over Kerry. 2) The DLC and other centrists who now want to oust Howard Dean have been roundly criticised on DU. 3) Any criticism from the right is moot and invalid. Just like FR is intended for Repubs and Cons, DU is intended for Dems and Progressives. Does the FR article claim that they are 'criticized by the left' for not permitting them to post? F.A.A.F.A. 04:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Are you saying that DU is not criticized for censorship issues, or that the critics are wrong? I think its a fair statement to say the DU is criticized regularly for censorship. Whether that criticism is valid or fair is another matter. Of course the whole paragraph is going to be difficult to source anyway, but I suppose it is a good idea to at least relate the latest criticism as opposed to issues that are a few years old. Dman727 07:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Find the criticism about censorship from RS V sources, not some blog or NN forums, and it can be included. 95% of the post 04 election claims of 'censorship' that I've read are from conservatives whining on a few NN forums that they can't post on DU. Even Freepers are astute enough to figure out that extremely popular high traffic political foums need to keep the posts from one 'side of the aisle'. NN forums desperate for any and all posts have no such concerns. Where have you read this 'criticism'? - F.A.A.F.A. 09:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Im not looking to add that to the article. I was trying to understand what you were stating. Im not concerned if you want to delete/rewrite that para..however you made A statement above and I was just trying to understand what you were trying to convey. It seems like you are spooling up to argue but Im just trying to understand your words, not differ with you.Dman727 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"removing original research"

[1]

DMan, some talk-page discussion of this kind of removal would be nice. Much, if not most, of this article is taken from the primary source of DU's forums, but for an article like this, it seems to me that it's appropriate. I'm sure that examples in the board for this sort of thing could be found, which I believe would be sufficient to source these statements. I'm not likely to be able to find them, because I don't have search capabilities on DU, but they're surely there, as I've seen them before.

I'm sure you meant well with this edit, but I think that {{fact}} tagging it would have sufficed. - Che Nuevara 02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're proably right. The edits to the section drew my attention and at first I thought that one sentence was unsourceable, then another then another etc. I don't have search capability either, but I would certainly support that section if it were sourced appropriately. Dman727 02:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just removed 12pthelvetica's attempt to include Original Research and links to a DU thread on alleged threats. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted and added links to RS V. There's now a total of five linked sources. Deal with it. Merry Fitzmas. - 12ptHelvetica 03:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

FAAFA, the recognized forum owner speaking in his official capacity can make announcements that normally wouldn't satisfy WP:RS but would in this instance.--RWR8189 03:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks quite well sourced now. Dman727 03:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is original research unless RS V secondary sources covered these statements - like the tsunami posts, or the insults after Reagan's passing. Find a RS V secondary source. Also, will the people arguing for inclusion explain how this different from the Chad Castagana documented death threats which the Free Republic supporters demand be excluded even though it had secondary sourcing? Thanks.- F.A.A.F.A. 08:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not even comparable to Castagana. Since the website owner is making a statement about his website WP:RS is satisfied through self-published sources in articles about themselves.--RWR8189 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? This what you argued when I wanted to include statements from Jim Robinson: "Going around fishing for "objectionable" statements by Jim Robinson is original research. A statement is not objectionable or controversial unless it is termed that way by a reliable source.... We need to look at the other incidents and determine their notability, if they are reported by a reliable source, then they should probably get some mention in the article. This could probably be accomplished in one paragraph so as not to give the incidents undue weight.--RWR8189 20:54, 17 December"' I'll file an RfC. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I never objected to the inclusion of Jim's comments in the article. My only objection was the original research that classified those comments as criticism or extremism. As you can see in this article I rectified the situation by not terming the comments as criticism but merely reporting the incident.--RWR8189 09:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it 'not comparable' to Castagana when JimRob admitted on FR that Casatagana was arrested for sending 13 terrorist threats, and had posted about them under the FR username Marc Costansa? - F.A.A.F.A. 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI) Hi RW - I filed an RfC One of us is misinterpeting OR and RS:Self Published. If it's me, I'll be the first to admit it. RfC Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 09:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be the correct place to file an RfC?--RWR8189 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel it's a policy issue - don't you? - F.A.A.F.A.

I was asking a question, in matters such as these I am mostly naive to the correct process.--RWR8189 09:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Both FAAFA and BenBurch seem to be very, very well-versed in the procedures of appeal to administrative intervention and sanctions (such as 3RR blocks), in light of their short tenures here at Wikipedia. - 12ptHelvetica 22:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Secret Service

Hi all, I deleted the section about the secret service contacting DU. This really isn't notable: the secret service has 3,000 officers, and follows up on thousands (if not tens of thousands) of complaints/suspicious/whatnot a year. It's not reflection of DU, and certainly not encyclopedia-grade material. Pro crast in a tor 00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, If it had been documented by a notable RS V secondary source like the 'Tsunami weapon' mention, it would have become notable. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That'd make it a secondary source for a self-verified piece of info. I don't see why it shouldn't go into the article now. Xiner (talk, email) 15:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment. The owner of the website found the incident notable enough to announce it to his members and everyone else, and to share pieces of his legal strategy as well. As stated earlier, I believe the event is notable, and the site owner commenting on it satisfies WP:RS.--RWR8189 01:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as well. While this incident would not be notable on its own with its own article, it certainly is within the context of an article on DU. As RWR noted above, even the cites owner found it noteable enough to announce it to his entire membership and it generated quite a bit of discussion amongst the members. It also further defines the membership and type of people that are attracted to DU with respect for their hatred for Bush. Dman727 03:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, now we see the real reason for including the incident. Out of thousands of DU participants, there were posts by two visitors -- two people who were so atypical of DU that they were banned even before the government made any inquiry. Nevertheless, it's a chance to smear the "type of people that are attracted to DU" by focusing on this highly unrepresentative sample. Giving undue weight to this minor incident would give our readers a false impression of the DU membership. JamesMLane t c 04:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The owner of the website gave the incident weight by making an announcement about it. I believe the last version that was in the article spoke of the incident in a very NPOV fashion, noting the infraction of stated DU policy, and how they intended to go from there.--RWR8189 04:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The owners of the website make frequent announcements. This month there've been a couple about the year-end charity drive [2], which has already raised several thousand dollars [3]. With many DU members donating, that's a much better example of a post that "defines the membership and type of people that are attracted to DU". Singling out the announcement about the Secret Service makes sense only if you want to give undue emphasis to a fact that will put DU members in a bad light. JamesMLane t c 05:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I support adding facts about charitable works of DU. I also support adding facts about investigations into incitements of Presidential Assasination. Please if you wish to add in relevant facts about DU charity work, you will find no opposition here. Dman727 06:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Its just a notable fact. Its up to the reader to interpet how it reflects on the site. This article accurately reflects the membership numbers (close to 100,000) (in fact Ive updated the mem. stats a few times to make sure they are accurate). The previous section accurately reflected that amongt them 2 people were under investigation for death threats. Its all NPOV.Dman727 05:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we cannot use DU to source facts about DU, then we should proably start excising most of this article as most of it is sourced by DU itself. Dman727 05:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing comments not covered in reliable sources is original research, however information about the site is covered in WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves.--RWR8189 05:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Thats why I do not understand why some are saying that we cannot source this DU death threat investigation by DU inself. Dman727 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I, however I suspect the pivot in argument from concerns over original research to notability has to do with the realization that WP:RS is satisfied with this incident included.--RWR8189 05:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea. I agree. But frankly I do think that death threats against the president ARE notable when they are made on a forum founded on the love of Bush and love of Bush is a common requirement for continuing membership. It needs to be kept in context of course. 2 members out of 100,000. But its far more noteable than some of the fluff that is on this article now. Dman727 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (Refactored)

And you, of course, know with certainty that those two posts were from legitimate DU members, as opposed to FReeptards or other troublemakers who were trying to make DU look bad and who knew that they could count on people like you to jump on the episode and blow it up as notable. Face it, Dman, you want this in because you have a fixation on this "hatred of Bush" idea and you'll miss no opportunity to promote that agenda. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion of Our Glorious Leader and of his detractors at DU, but a minor incident doesn't become notable simply because it fits your preconceptions about DUers. JamesMLane t c 05:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I support adding the facts. I make no claims as to the identity of the people who made the posts. They may be Bush haters or they may be Bush lovers..We cant source that right now. The fact is the Skinner posted to his membership that certain posts and (ex)members were under investigation for death threats. thats all. But its hardly a minor incident and is certainly noteable within the context of an article on this particular site. It was damn sure notable to the membership, who took varous strong positions and incited a great deal of debate. Post this fact in NPOV and reasonable people will draw reasonable conclusions. However it is NOT NPOV if we only include the cheery and fun facts about DU and leave out major events like death threats againsts the president and resulting secret service investitgations. Dman727 06:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I find it humorous that you read your own bias into this and assumed that I find Bush "Our Glorious Leader". Its really irrelevant, but I am opposed to most of the Bush administration ideas and policys and found DU while making relevant searches. What I found at DU was interesting and theres some well informed folks there. But Sadly, the radicals tend to drown out the reasonable people by a large margin. Dman727 06:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This event isn't notable because of some agenda by Dman, real or imagined, it is notable because the site's owner thought enough of the incident to publicize it. If a threat on the President's life and ensuing action by the Secret Service isn't notable, I don't know what is.--RWR8189 06:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. If folks in the conversation would care to check the logs. I did not add, revert, nor edit the relevant section (though I reserve the right). This is not about me. Its about death threats against the president and even the owner of the site and ensuing membership found them noteable. Dman727 06:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're both ignoring the point I made. The site's owner publicizes lots and lots of things. Why is this one announcement deemed so important, if not because of the agenda it serves? Or do you believe that every announcement the site's owners have made over the years should be covered at equal length? As for RWR's concluding statement, it's pretty clear what's notable if this isn't. What's notable (in an article about DU) is something that involves significant numbers of DU regulars, not a one-off incident from a couple of unknowns who may well have been agents provocateurs and who were promptly banned. JamesMLane t c 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See my response above. I support adding in facts about DU's charity works, as well as Secret Service investitgations into allegations of incitement to commit Assasination. They are both noteable. And Yes, incitement to murder IS notable, especially when it is that of the president. If we were to delete everything less noteable, the article would be fairly sparse. Dman727 06:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Dman's above comments. How often does the site owner make announcements pertaining to the US Secret Service? You must recognize that the involvement of death threats against high ranking government officials and the Secret Service makes an announcement much more notable than some policy change.--RWR8189 06:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

DEATH THREATS?

Please show me where the actual posts were described by Skinner or the Secret Service as 'death threats', or 'death threats against the president' link If you can't come up with the quotes, I might have to refactor most of this page, as RWR1898 did numerous times on Free Republic talk. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 07:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The words written by David Allen strongly infer that death threats were involved. He quotes the relevant DU policy regarding death threats, he goes on to say that he's not sure the posts provided a "legitimate" threat, and he states There exists no constitutional right to threaten the life of the president of the United States. It seems to me you are arguing over semantics, and regardless, the proposed version of what be included does not say "death threats"--RWR8189 08:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

'strongly infer' is not the same - you know that - plus it's still OR. How is this issue 'not comparable' to your Chad Castagana objections when JimRob admitted on Free Republic that Casatagana, A Free Republic member, was arrested for sending 13 terrorist threats to politicians and celebrities, and had even posted about them under his FR username Marc Costansa? - F.A.A.F.A. 08:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that what this is about? Spillover from the freerepublic page? Comeon, lets keep disagreements over there, over there. FWIW, criminal elements and serious investigation into criminal elements is relevant and noteworthy on ANY major forum and that includes DU and FR. Dman727 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

faafaa, why would you refactor this page? Please don't start screwing around with the talk page. We are trying to have a civil conversation about a disagreement. Thats what the talk page is for naturally. If you begin censoring what we are discussing, this polite discussion will degrade quickly. Its clear to me that these are death/violence threats (and if you are honest with yourself, I bet you as well) If you feel otherwise, then by all means point it out, but please don't start censoring talk page comments as I suspect it will only harden opinions and create ill will. We don't want that. Dman727 09:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see any WP:BLP issues with what has been said on this talk page, and I don't think you do either, please observe WP:POINT. My views on Casatagana are all over the FR talk page, his membership to the forum is incidental to the alleged crime, which is the only thing that makes him notable. However this incident occurs exclusively on the DU website and is in not notable to the website or otherwise unless the information was disclosed by an involved party. Casatagana stands notable on his own, with any association with FR being as incidental as a membership at the local YMCA.--RWR8189 09:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've really no interest in the FR page or Castagana, but I lend this opinion. If Castagana used FR to commit or further his crimes, that is clearly noteworthy and should be on the FR page. If he was merely a member, then the noteworthyness drops significantly (but may still be included depending on details). Please don't try to convince me either way on the Castagana/fr discussion...I don't care :). Im just finding it annoying and disruptive that what is clearly noteable HERE is being removed to make a point on some other page about some other issue. In this case, DU was the method of committing a crime done, comitted by unknown persons. Its being investigaged by the Secret Service and the owner of the site considered it a death threat. Thats noteworthy folks. Dman727 09:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dman, I strongly advise you to refactor your statements such as this - before I am forced to do so along with filing a 'PAIN' - and advise you to refrain from this sort of slander and vitriolic rhetoric in the future. "But frankly I do think that death threats against the president ARE notable when they are made on a forum founded on the hatred of Bush and hatred of Bush is a common requirement for continuing membership" - F.A.A.F.A. 09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who exactly is being slandered here? Is the corporation Democratic Underground, LLC, a website that is proudly anti-Bush, being slandered by being labeled as such? Is the corporation being slandered by basically summarizing what was said by the owner of that website on the article's talk page? By all means head over to WP:PAIN, I know I would certainly be interested in what they have to say.--RWR8189 11:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intention to slander the corporation "Democratic Underground" (although I didnt realize that a corporation is considered "personal" as in PAIN) In fact I figured that DU would find such comments a compliment. However, if Democratic Underground has changed their views on President Bush, perhaps you should consider updating the article to indicate its level of fondness for this administration. Perhaps merge the article with Free Republic even? Dman727 19:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

FaaFa, per your request, I have refactored my comment. I hope these meet with your approval. The new version is "But frankly I do think that death threats against the president ARE notable when they are made on a forum founded on the love of Bush and love of Bush is a common requirement for continuing membership." Dman727 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep trolling and see where it gets you. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah FaaFa, I had hoped you would enjoy a little humor. My apologies. Dman727 23:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Wonder how long it will be until the entire "Criticism" section vanishes. Jinxmchue 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see to have stirred up a hornets nest here - that certainly wasn't my intention. Having read the above, I maintain that there should not be a dedicated section to this incident, but I also agree that the criticism section is rather skimpy.

Here are a few other sites have also been visited by the Secret Service for threats by users, I only spent 5 minutes looking around but I know there are more out there:

Myspace: [4]

Free Republic: [5]

DailyKos: I remember reading that Kos had been visited, but can't find a link right now

I liked how the issue was treated on Free Republic, so I added a 2 sentence paragraph under "criticism" about it. Comments? This replaces the 17-line previous section, which I still maintain is far too much about this incident, especially given how so little is known about this incident and how not even the SS knows who they are investigating at this point. However, we might as well leave this as a placeholder for future updates, though I think it should be kept short regardless of the outcome. Pro crast in a tor 01:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote it slightly to include the whole policy statement. I still contend that, unless this was covered by RS V secondary sources that it constitutes OR, and does not fall under RS:selfpublished etc. If this RS;selpublished WP was meant to cover blogs and forums, every article could be filled with quotes and posts from the forum owner meant to skew the article one way or another. That is WHY we rely on secondary sourcing - to prevent editors from cherry picking what THEY think is notable. RS V secondary documentation decides if an event, or claim, or forum post, or blog author's post is notable or not - not editors. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote your rewrite slightly, removing the double use of "banned", but I do think that a trimmed-down quote from Mr. Allen's post flows better - thoughts? It's more than I had before, but less than you had, so maybe we can meet halfway. :)

My understanding of RS:selfpublished would allow for this post to be referred to as it isn't about Mr. Allen specifically, and there's no reason to doubt that he's telling the truth about all of this IMHO. Pro crast in a tor 09:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many RS secondary sources. This is not OR. [6] [7] [8] Shibumi2 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

None of those sites are reliable sources, however as noted earlier the actual text from the site owner satisfies WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves.--RWR8189 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help me understand. You say if a blog reports something another web site posts about itself, that is not RS with a link to the web site? But using the web site itself standing alone is OR? These are very strict rules. It is a wonder anything is entered in the article. Shibumi2 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Empty references

What is the deal with the empty references? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee decision

The Arbitration Committee has rendered a decision affecting this article. As noted above, this article has been placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. The complete decision can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting info

In the intro, it says that DU publishes articles six days a week, but in the next section, it looks like they only publish articles three days a week. Perhaps the intro needs updating, or I'm missing something. - Crockspot 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been a month. I'm going to tweak the wording. Crockspot 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Anybody want to explain what the apparent objection is to adding a link to DU's own "mailbag" feature in which they clearly and unambiguously state the right to censor viewpoints they don't like? This seems very relevant to the censorship claims in the "criticism" section, as it is a primary source with high credibility (the site itself!). I don't want to get into a revert war, but I'm not understanding this characterization as alleged "original research".--68.54.18.57 03:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well its pretty simple. Its WP:OR. The article entry is based on a "mailbag" and then characterizes it as "mocking" and censorship. Now DU may very well do all those things, but you need a reliable source that makes the claims, not just your or my opinion. Dman727 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but it seems that you and RWR are reverting without even examining the evidence provided. I quote the DU feature page directly -- "DU RESPONDS: You know, every so often we get an email from some clever dick who really thinks he's got us pinned down. Congratulations Mark, your cunning plan almost worked, except for one, tiny flaw... IT SAYS IN BIG LETTERS RIGHT ON OUR REGISTRATION PAGE AND IN OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE CENSOR OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS. By the way, you can contact our advertisers if you like but I don't think they'll give much of two shits what you think, to be honest. Good luck. Oh and since you challenged us to post a link, here's one of you doing a good Rush Limbaugh impression. Buh-bye." It hardly seems ambiguous that they reserve the right to censor and consider it their right as the system admins. This is not the voice of a critic, this is the voice of the article's subject. It is directly relevant to the criticism section and shores up the apparently acknowledged claim that DU censors content at the whim of its operators. Given the language used, I don't believe my choice of the verb "mock" is inappropriate or non-neutral. Please explain how this is "original research" and/or why that policy applies. If there's no response, I'll assume your objections are withdrawn and repost.--68.54.18.57 04:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The information is superfluous as DU's censorship is already acknowledged in the first paragraph of that section.

The stuff about People For Change is just plain original research, unless the schism is documented by verifiable and reliable sources it lacks notability as much as it did last year.--RWR8189 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is mention of claims of censorship by critics, but there is no evidence provided to back that up. I don't see how providing a link to an admission of the practice by site administrators constitutes original research. If there is an objection to the language chosen, I am open to discussing it. With respect to the People for Change part... that existed prior to my entry. I just split the paragraph that contained it. I disagree with your assessment of notability but perhaps it does not belong in this article; an article about the "People for Change" site could note the reasons for its origin.--68.54.18.57 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Before you imply that the subject is discussed only in terms of critics' claims, with "no evidence provided to back that up", please look at the article. The second sentence of the article states, "Its membership is restricted by policy to those who are generally supportive of progressive ideals and support Democratic candidates for political office." The sentence is supported by a citation to DU's established rules, which is a better reference than a one-off response to one particular critic more than five years ago. Furthermore, in the body of our article, the section about the forums expressly states, "Administrators sometimes ban users for violating site policies."

To characterize one particular response as mocking DU's critics is an opinion, and inappropriate. My more profound objection to your paragraph, however, is that the response isn't important enough to be mentioned at all, with or without the improper characterization. The paragraph wouldn't add any significant information to what's already in the article. I agree with RWR that it would be superfluous. JamesMLane t c 07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So the objections about this being "original research" have evaporated and now you're looking to exclude it on the basis of importance. Please note with care the wording of the article as it exists "critics say that administrators and moderators unfairly ban or censor members". This is simply an allegation. Arguably, the allegation without factual support does not belong in the article. The link provided does, in fact, reference factual support for this practice in the form of an official DU response to allegations of censorship that they received by email. As the above quote makes clear, the system administrators frankly admit that they do censor opposing viewpoints. The choice of the verb "to mock" is again, to my mind, completely justified given the cited statement by DU system administrators (and other such statements found on the same page), but it is not critical to my argument that the citation is needed to support allegations of censorship. Does anyone care to suggest an alternate wording that would accomplish the same end of making it clear the DU can and does engage in the censorship of opposing viewpoints? I'm not arguing against their right to do so; I just believe it's important that people reading about it on Wikipedia know that this is the case.--68.54.18.57 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To be more clear, I would argue that membership restrictions and typical site policing of users who abuse site policies are not usually worthy of the label "censorship". Censorship means deliberately excluding certain ideas, a charge by critics that is not adequately supported in the article as it exists. It does not strike me as implicit in the membership rules when the ideas being excluded are, often, supportive of progressive ideals and Democratic candidates. The citation I provided may not be the DU admininstrators' finest editorial moment, but it is at least a frank admission that they do not hesitate to engage in the practice of censorship. I believe it belongs in the article.--68.54.18.57 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First, your comment that a certain opinion has "evaporated" is wrong. There is no cabal, you know -- in particular, there's no united group of editors scheming together to thwart you. I'd guess that the people who've invoked WP:NOR would still do so. I personally believe that a citation to (or quotation from) the site's official rules is appropriate and doesn't violate WP:NOR; I've held that view for at least a year, as you can see by this edit, where I fixed vandalism to a verbatim quotation. I don't know why the verbatim quotation was removed. Perhaps restoring it would meet your objection?

Then again, perhaps not, because your real objective seems to be to throw mud at the DU admins over this "issue". You contend, "Censorship means deliberately excluding certain ideas, a charge by critics that is not adequately supported in the article as it exists. It does not strike me as implicit in the membership rules when the ideas being excluded are, often, supportive of progressive ideals and Democratic candidates." Your first sentence is refuted by the passages that RWR and I have mentioned but which you never address. Your second sentence suggests your real agenda: You want the article to reflect the point that strikes you, namely that some people and ideas are excluded even though they aren't conservative. The message from 2001 that you're so fond of doesn't add any information on that score. The rules already referenced in the article already constitute "a frank admission" of content-based censorship, so what does that additional reference add? I'm guessing you prefer it precisely because you think it's "not ... the DU admininstrators' finest editorial moment". The formal rules remain a better source than one random post pulled from a huge number available on the site. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: My comment above applies to the "mailbag" passage. With respect to the mention of People for Change, I agree with RWR that it's original research. I just visited the site to see if I could quickly find a statement that "we were founded by DU refugees" but I couldn't. While there I noticed there were 38 users online at the moment, which surely casts doubt on its notability as well. JamesMLane t c 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I like your TV lawyer style, but in fact I chose that citation because it is at the top of a Google search for terms: "'democraticundeground.com' censorship".

I do not believe I was ignoring the replies from you and RWR, but I will be more explicit. Both you and RWR refer to the second sentence of the article, which refers to membership restrictions based on ideology, and which implies that only "right" or "conservative" viewpoints are unwelcome.

The first sentence of the article, however, makes the claim that DU "is an online community for Democrats and other progressives". The criticism section alleges the practice of censoring ideas that would qualify as "Democratic" or "progressive" in the minds of many people, but which are not endorsed by the site's administrators. The citation I provided makes it clear that DU admins reserve the right to censor "opposing" viewpoints as opposed to just "conservative" viewpoints, and I believe this citation (or some other equally frank official statement) is required to back the claim that DU admins censor more than ideas associated with "right" side of the political spectrum.

I've reviewed the rules you refer to, but these deal primarily with disruptive and anti-social behavior that falls into the 'policing' category I mentioned before. Again, I would typically reject the characterization of this type of policing as "censorship". The rules are an excellent illustration of how they remove users for site policy violations, but the quote from them that you previously defended, again, implies that any ideological censorship occurs only with respect to "conservative" ideas.

Are these adequate responses to your questions? Can you suggest any other wording or citations that would communicate the broader censorship that DU engages in (beyond that already acknowledged as a fact and not an allegation in the article)?--68.54.18.57 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't watch enough television to have an idea of what a "TV lawyer style" is. I'll take your description as a compliment, pending further analysis.  :)

As for the specifics, the passage in the lead section refers to "supportive of progressive ideals" but also support for Democratic candidates. Who's opposed to Democratic candidates? Well, obviously, we think first of the Republicans, and that's the major application of the rule. As a less important aspect, though, people bashing the Dems on behalf of the Greens are also covered.

In my first comment in this thread, I wrote, "The paragraph wouldn't add any significant information to what's already in the article." In my second comment, I wrote, "You want the article to reflect the point that strikes you, namely that some people and ideas are excluded even though they aren't conservative. The message from 2001 that you're so fond of doesn't add any information on that score." You keep not addressing this point. What you need is a citation to a prominent spokesperson for the charge that DU excludes progressives and that this is somehow wrongful "censorship". The mailbag you want to link to doesn't reflect any such criticism. Getting Google hits doesn't make the critic prominent. The "mailbag" also doesn't provide factual support for the specific point that DU excludes some non-right-wing opinions. It's just a general statement of the policy of not being a complete free-for-all site, a general policy that's much more authoritatively embodied in the rules we cite. JamesMLane t c 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am evading none of your points, JamesMLane.

1) You contend that the citation adds no relevant information. I contend that it does; it is a primary source statement that they "censor opposing viewpoints" that provides evidence for claims (in the "criticism" section) of censorship across the political spectrum. Note that it is the DU staff themselves that choose the word "censor" -- not me, not a critic. Note also that the words "censor" and "censorship" do not appear on the rules page already cited in the article. The claim of censorship is a strong one, and needs to be backed by an authoritative citation such as the one I submitted.

2) You contend that I want the article to reflect the point that strikes me. This is obviously true. That's why I chose to participate in editing this community-based wiki. I consider it an omission in the article's treatment of the subject, which leaves the question surprisingly ill-defined. Critics charges are mentioned, but factual support for the allegation is not provided. Note is made that membership is restricted based on ideology, but the question of censorship is left implicit instead of explicit. I would contend that the primary source use of the word "censor" does bring at least the certainty that it occurs (and is intentional) to the article.

3) I reiterate that the use of the word "censor" to describe their actions is by a DU staffer, as seen in the quote above from the cited page. It is not the voice of a critic. It does not need prominence. Someone else on this page refers to the policy regarding self-published material, and this surely falls into that category.

4) The purely voluntary use of the word "censor" by a DU staffer, available in a public document on the DU site, is factual support for the noted allegations in the "criticism" section, plain and simple. Your own interpretation of this comment as a mere rephrasing of the site participation rules is, as far as I can tell, your own opinion. You are welcome to it, but that does not strike me as a proper reason to exclude the citation.

With respect to the wording of the citation, or even that particular citation that you seem to find distasteful, I repeat that I am open to suggestions both for a) alternate wording for the citation, and b) an alternate citation of the same facts with similar authority. I have found no alternate citation. I see no need to look for one, since I do not expect to find one with more authority. Note that I am not trying to "sling mud" by making DU's own words available to readers for inspection.

Your response is eagerly awaited. In the meantime, I will suggest a rewording for the citation link that might meet with approval: "DU has, in fact, admitted in the past that site administrators 'censor opposing viewpoints.'"--68.54.18.57 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been more than a full day since my last post on this matter. There has been no reply, even though previous talk messages resulted in responses within minutes or hours. I can only assume that silence means consent. I'm adding the text that I suggested at the end of my last talk message, and I don't expect to see it reverted.--68.54.18.57 13:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Never assume that silence means consent. Some of us are busy. And don't make assumptions about what appears as a top Google hit. Google has been shown to be vulnerable to manipulation by use of Google "bombs". - Crockspot 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, it's clearly not in keeping with the Wikipedia spirit to revert out a change that has been as well-defended as this one. I do not need your permission to change this article, and Wikipedia does not wait on you. I note that you do not respond to any of my arguments above, nor do you defend this specious charge of "original research". That said, I'm replacing my addition with the full expectation that it will remain. If you want to challenge it here, please address some of my arguments. Otherwise, we can take it up with administration.--68.54.18.57 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Take it up with administration then, but be aware that this article us under Arbitration probation, and we are supposed to be taking some of the crap out of this article, not adding more crap to it. And don't expect that I am required to respond to your arguments. I generally do not reply to someone I percieve as a POV pusher who will argue a single point until they are blue in the face. I don't have the time. Frankly, I don't see why this information is even relevant. The site is called Democratic Underground, and the rules page states that it is a site for Democrats to support Democratic candidates, and not for Libertarians, Greens, or Republicans. Now, if you could come up with a reliable secondary source that makes this observation, then you would have a leg to stand on about it not being OR, but with a primary blog source published by the subject of the article, you are using a source of dubious reliability, and synthesizing that source to make a conclusion. That is OR. You've been told this already, and just because editors choose not to keep repeating the obvious to you does not make your arguments the consensus. - Crockspot 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, your arguments echo the ones from JamesMLane, which are amply addressed.

You are not required to respond to my arguments, but it surely is the better practice. I'm sorry your perceive me as a "POV pusher", but I encourage you to review my posts more thoroughly to see if it changes your mind.

I reiterate my position that this citation is a move towards NPOV, not away from it. It provides factual support for the charge of censorship, which is not specifically addressed in any previous cited material, though it may seem implied by the membership rules. Right now, the criticism section has no citations supporting the allegations. That is why the citation is relevant.

A secondary source would have no more authority than the article subject on the matter. Should you find such a source, I would encourage you to add it, since it would present further support for the charge of criticism and make for a better-sourced article. But lack of a secondary source does not mean the primary should be excluded.

With great patience, I repeat that the quote I took for the citation is 100% reliable, as it is the voice of DU staff, not a critic. I repeat that I am open to suggestions for alternate citations of equivalent authority.

The revision I made today synthesizes nothing -- the words provided are the article subject's own, and I deliberately chose them to provide factual support for the charge of censorship without violating NPOV. I repeat that I am open to suggestions for alternate phrasings of the citation.

I'll give you your three reverts of my change before taking this up with administration, but in my opinion, you're on pretty thin ground here. I have been polite and cooperative in actively soliciting the opinions of others, and have tried to address every concern that has been pressed on the talk page.

For the last time, please defend this assertion that the entry is "original research" or drop the charge altogether.--68.54.18.57 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing rules state that blog posts by a subject may only be used in articles about that subject, and only when authorship is unequivocal. Please point out to me who the author of the source you are inserting is. We have no idea who wrote those responses. The responses are also written tongue-in-cheek, which brings the seriousness of the replies into doubt. It is not a reliable source, and should be removed. I'm not going to play a 3RR game with you, though your comment about it implies that you are making a WP:POINT. You're free to dig your own grave here. - Crockspot 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, your repeated attempts to characterize me as a disruptive influence are just plain disingenuous.

1) The subject of this article is DU the organization, not a specific person. The statement in question was made by someone working at DU on behalf of the organization. It is published even today by that organization, on that organizations own website. If you read the cited page, that *is* unequivocal, unless you are trying to claim that its presence is the result of some sort of hacking attempt.

2) I do not find the response to be "tongue-in-cheek". The meaning is unambiguous. You are free to attack my earlier characterization of the comments as "mocking", but you'll notice that I've dropped that language because of NPOV concerns. You are free to interpret their comment as a joke if you like, but that is your opinion.

3) I am glad that you did not revert again without trying to back up your argument here. I made my statement regarding waiting for three reverts in order to give you time to reconsider, not as illustration that I was making a "WP:POINT". This dispute is not about the functioning of the Wikipedia system. I am pretty sure that's clear.

4) You still have not responded substantively on the issue of how my revised addition qualifies as "original research". I have reviewed WP:OR several times, trying to understand your basis for claiming this. The argument that it is a synthesis seems spurious and weak to me. The relevant language of WP:OR on which I'm basing my claim of relevance is: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

5) The citation is directly related to the claim of censorship found in the "criticism" section of the article. It directly provides factual support for this claim. No such citation previously existed. Again, this seems to make it a better article, in my mind, and seems to adhere to what I understand as Wikipedia best practices.

6) My revision of the original language for the citation shows my sensitivity to the input of others. I am 100% open to hearing more in defense of your claim that the entry is OR, or any other objections you might have, for that matter. I can be convinced that I am wrong, just show me where I'm wrong instead of simply postulating it without evidence.--68.54.18.57 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

RWR, I got your message/warning re: edit warring and absolutely reject this characterization. A simple review of this lengthy thread shows to what lengths I've gone to justify the addition, and what steps I've taken to address the concerns of others. I am certain my behavior will pass muster in an administrative review or mediation. I am less certain that yours will. If you have a substantive argument behind your claim of OR, please provide it. I have already responded in depth demonstrating my belief that WP:OR calls for inclusion, not removal. If anything is to be characterized as an edit war, it is the repeated removal of this valid addition in the absence of any policy-supported reasoning for doing so.--68.54.18.57 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC) RWR, on detailed review of the thread, I see that you made an accusation of OR only with respect to some material that was not mine and that has since been deleted. Are you still claiming that my entry is OR? As far as I can tell, your only other stated objection is that the entry is "superfluous" due to the membership restrictions stated in the article's first paragraph. I ask that you review my arguments addressed to others on this thread to see my contention that it is not superfluous at all -- it is practically demanded by WP:OR with respect to pre-existing claims in the "criticism" section that DU engages in censorship.--68.54.18.57 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• These long replies make my eyes glaze over, and probably explains why people stopped replying to you, you wore them out. Do not interpret my lack of a revert as agreeing with you. I am merely being prudent, because this article is under ARBCOM scrutiny. - Crockspot 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, I am sorry my replies are too lengthy for your tastes. Earlier attempts at brevity did not seem to be successful in communicating clearly. To avoid bad practices and to attempt to build consensus, I have laid out my case in some detail -- even repetitively where necessary -- if responses did not address my valid points. I hope you (and the others) can exhibit a fraction of the same patience I have by reading my arguments all the way through.

There is currently a banner right at the top of the article to the effect that it may contain unverified claims. It seems there was an arbitration committee decision some time ago requesting improvements in both NPOV and sourcing. I have added a small improvement with respect to sourcing. Making it stick is my intent here.

Again, I remain open to any concerns about NPOV of the phrasing. And again, I remain open to using an alternate citation of equivalent authority, if one can be found, but I do not accept the burden of hunting one up myself. There is nothing insufficient about the source I chose according to Wikipedia policy.

You say you don't agree with me, and in the spirit of building consensus, I ask again that you share the nature of your disagreement. A version of the citation that we can both agree on would obviously better, but I will settle for one that is well-supported by policy if that's my only choice.--68.54.18.57 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to weigh in. As mentioned above, way way above, silence doesnt equal consent. This is just a note that I maintain my objection the material, per my previous statements somewhere up there in that sea of words :). 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman727 (talk • contribs)

Here is my concern. The Criticism head section uses Wikipedia's voice, and claims that DU has been criticized for censorship. In every other article I've ever edited, to claim criticism of a subject there has to be reliable secondary sourcing showing that this criticism exists. Currently this paragraph cites no sources at all. The inclusion you want to make uses WP's voice loudly, and the source you wish to use is a primary source from a blog, the blog being the subject. It just doesn't cut it. This may blow your mind, but I happen to agree with you that DU squashes debate on certain subjects. I get hours of entertainment every week watching that anthill eat itself alive, but I don't think it's notable enough for an entry in an encyclopedia. The fact that there are no notable secondary sources criticizing DU for censorship bears this out. And yes, it is your responsibility to find better sourcing if you are the editor who wants to include something. I patrol BLP articles, so I'm more hard nosed about the sourcing of negative information than others might be. In my opinion, the Criticism header and paragraph should be removed, and the following subsection should be made the header. - Crockspot 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, it pleases me to no end that we both agree that DU engages in censorship. My only interest is that the article on DU reflect this simple fact, which is supported by DU's own statements, as cited.

I am not asking that the word CENSOR be emblazoned across the top of the article, nor that it be the first thing that Wikipedia readers learn about DU. But anyone who take the time to read through the whole article, i.e. be informed about the subject, should come away with this information.

I am not out to make DU look bad for doing this; I understand that my own disapproval of the practice is not a relevant fact for the purposes of the article. As stated before, I have taken pains to build consensus on wording for the citation to ensure that NPOV is achieved/preserved. Not one wording suggestion has been provided by anyone involved.

You will note that seeking such input is first step in dispute resolution. You will also note that the "0th" step (avoidance) requests that "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." Not one of the parties involved made the prescribed attempt to avoid a dispute.

You will also note that I voluntarily initiated the second step in dispute resolution, "disengaging for a while". Having noted other users' NPOV concerns with the original wording (use of the verb "to mock"), I posted an alternate wording that I felt addressed these concerns. I also invited further suggestions, indicated that I would go ahead with the change if I did not hear back, and then waited a full day for responses before. None were received. Your suggestion that this might be insufficient time does not seem well-supported by the average response time to my edits or talk attempts here, which have always occurred in minutes or hours.

It is my feeling that your previous objections to the citation have been addressed in my other posts. You have not followed up on them in this recent post, so it seems reasonable to assume that you have withdrawn them. If this is not the case, let me know so we can hash it out more clearly, but to summarize my previous rebuttals: 1) question of authorship for "censor opposing viewpoints" is unambiguously that of someone acting on behalf of the organization that is the subject of this article, 2) "tongue-in-cheek" characterization of cited material appears to be subjective opinion only, same as my characterization of "mocking" was, 3) while I never addressed your comment re: google bombs, it does not seem relevant to the authority of the source, which is quite obviously DU.

With respect to your changes earlier this evening, while you may be expecting a fight, I won't give you one. I did some research, and I was also unable to find an appropriate citation to back up the "critics charge" line, a line which I did not author. HOWEVER, I do firmly believe that the practice of censorship should be noted in this article, as the evidence for it is in my original citation.

Before going further, I will ask again for clarification on what legitimate objections there are to using the cited page as a source. I have seen it referred to many times (including by you) as a "blog", but it is not a blog. Nor is it a user post in a DU forum. Nor is it a user blog hosted by DU. It is a DU publication feature page offering DU's response to mail received, even though that feature has been discontinued. So far I've heard no legitimate objections to, nor any sustainable challenge of, the source's authority to speak about itself, reliability in speaking about itself, or verifiability in speaking about itself. It's not clear to me that you understand the nature of the source. When you said "the blog being the subject", did you mean "the blog being the subject's"?

My suggestion is for an article section titled "Use of Censorship" that contains only the neutral fact: "DU staff has, in the past, stated that they 'censor opposing viewpoints'." -- plus, of course, my original citation, to support the quoted part. Note that I have updated the previously proposed wording, just in case anyone finds the word "admitted" to be loaded in the absence of the "critics charge" line.

This particular citation is needed because, as previously covered, no other currently-cited material directly addresses the practice of censorship. I do not agree with the contention of others that leaving the subject of censorship implicit due to cited membership and participation rules is sufficient. Nobody has addressed this point, and I don't know why. I cannot believe that anyone's objection is truly that the article would be "too well-sourced" if the citation is included. Once again, I am open to anyone providing another citation of equivalent authority, reliability, and verifiability, but I personally see no need for it and will not accept the burden of finding one.

As for location in the article... Perhaps a subsection of the "criticism" section would be the place for it, but I don't really care. Any other suggestions for location would be welcomed. Anyone who believes that it belongs in a different section, please speak up. No reasonable person can interpret sustained silence as anything other than consent.

In light of your previous comments, know that I appreciate you taking the time to read this all the way through. I look forward to your substantive response.--68.54.18.57 05:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to my previous comment below, I'll now add a response to one of your statements above. You wrote: "It is my feeling that your previous objections to the citation have been addressed in my other posts. You have not followed up on them in this recent post, so it seems reasonable to assume that you have withdrawn them." In general, in a volunteer project like Wikipedia, that assumption is not reasonable. If a change is proposed and is not objected to, you can in good faith make the change, but don't put words in other editors' mouths based on their silence, and don't think that the change you made is thereby somehow itself immune from being changed. This situation often arises where, as here, there is an editor intensely focused on one particular article, and several other editors whose attention is divided among many articles. In addition, as Dman727 mentioned, even people who return to an article are not required to reiterate (and re-reiterate, and re-re-reiterate, etc.) a particular opinion. The purpose of the talk page is to improve the article, not to see who can "win" by wearing the other side down and thus getting in the last word. JamesMLane t c 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon 68, one of the reasons I didn't respond as immediately as you would have liked is that you gave no sign of having paid attention to my previous responses (or Crockspot's, or RWR's). Instead, you simply reiterate your contention that we haven't explained to you how your addition is original research. I'm going to boldface just one of the previous comments that you don't answer: "What you need is a citation to a prominent spokesperson for the charge that DU excludes progressives and that this is somehow wrongful 'censorship'. The mailbag you want to link to doesn't reflect any such criticism."

If there is a criticism of DU on this score, we as an encyclopedia don't adopt it. (As a minor point, BTW, your use of the word "admitted" is clearly POV, because it reflects your personal opinion that the DU administrators are acting wrongfully in not running their site the way you think they should.) What we do is to report it -- provided that the criticism meets our policies. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight.

Another key point that you don't answer is that the link you're so fond of doesn't say what you want to read into it. Your thesis is that, because a DU admin said, in effect, "We censor some views," but didn't specifically say in that particular response to a conservative "We censor conservative views like yours but we don't censor progressives," then it's the same as saying "we censor progressives". By that logic, the same quotation would "prove" that DU censors all Christian comments. Our article makes clear that DU does not hold itself out to be an ideological free-for-all. The purpose of our article is to give information to the reader, not to be a soapbox for critics of DU. JamesMLane t c 05:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JamesMLane, looks like your last post came in only seconds after mine, so in case you did not take the time to read it, see it re: use of the word "admitted". I have already proposed different language ("stated") to address this concern.

I have to assume you are joking when you say that I "gave no sign of having paid attention to previous responses". The size of this thread is testament to the fact that I have responded in detail to each argument presented. Please, for both our sakes, don't ask me to respond to every single sentence of your posts. I am and have been responsive to all of your points. Is it too much to expect the same courtesy from you?

Your repetition of a point you think I have missed is appreciated. I think there may be some confusion here in what you perceive to be my goal. I am not out to prove that DU excludes progressives. My previous comments that seem to be your basis for this remark were in response to claims that the issue of censorship is adequately covered by 1) noting up-front that membership is restricted as described, and 2) the existing citation to DU's rules of participation. You'll recall that I specifically addressed both of these points. My remarks re: censorship of "left" views were intended only to demonstrate that the cited rules of participation leave a lot of ambiguity with respect to describing content that will be censored. In addition, as noted, the words "censor" and "censorship" are not used on the rules page. I'm not trying to present any kind of "thesis" here.

I think there also may be some confusion on your part in that the citation is not intended to support the idea that "critics charge censorship", but that DU does, in fact, "censor opposing viewpoints", as seen in their own characterization of their actions. Based on the article's structure when I arrived, the "critics charge" line seemed the natural place to put the citation, but you'll note that I didn't add the page as a citation for "critics charge" sentence.

My intended citation does not say "censor some views", it uses DU's own words on the matter: "censor opposing views". This quite tidily sums up the otherwise ambiguous question of what will be censored at DU -- any view considered to oppose the organization's will be.

As I have explained many times, I strongly believe that the authority, reliability, and verifiability of DU's comments about itself -- published in their own editorial feature -- are beyond question. No more "prominence" is required. Are you seriously contesting this? Would you prefer that the article say "DU has claimed that its own site administrators 'censor opposing viewpoints'."? That strikes me as absurd.

Although the critic who wrote in the letter is unknown and may not be deemed noteworthy, DU's editorial response to that letter definitely is noteworthy, as it settles the question of whether they engage in "censorship", specifically. In addition to hosting discussion forums, DU publishes original content. The page cited is equivalent to responses to "letters to the editor" of a newspaper. To make the claim that this page lacks sufficient authority or notability is specious. Lack of one person's signature is irrelevant, it is a statement from the organization about the actions of that organization. Editorial content in newspapers often appears without an individual's signature. NPOV requires only "an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population", and this provides it: DU admins, i.e. DU the organization itself, which is the subject of the article.

I am not "fond" of that citation, so I request that you stop asserting that. I have repeatedly stated that I would happily endorse an alternate that is equivalent in authority and function, where "function" = "directly addresses DU's use of censorship". So far as I can tell, this source is unique in satisfying those criteria, which may be why no alternative citations have been suggested by anyone here.

It seems like Crockspot, at least, agrees that DU engages in the practice of censorship. Do you honestly believe it does not? If you don't believe it, how does your personal belief outweigh the authoritative, reliable, and verifiable source I've provided, in which DU says it does?

Finally, how does making DU's own words available to readers qualify as "soapboxing"? Do you consider inclusion of a single, well-supported, neutral fact to be "undue weight"?

Please see my previous post to Crockspot for currently-proposed language. I look forward to your substantive and timely response.--68.54.18.57 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that DU restricts posting is mentioned in the second sentence of the article, and again in the lead sentence of the Ideology section. That is their policy, just like at many other political websites. Just because you and I don't like it doesn't mean there is notable criticism. It isn't necessary to keep beating on that horse, and unless you have a reliable secondary source actually criticizing DU for this policy, then you can't claim in Wikipedia's voice that they are criticized for it. I have the same issue with the Lieberman thing in the Criticism section. There's no source there showing that DU ever commented about that issue, and there is no source showing that they were criticized for it. (Even though I did see the posts, and commented on it at CU, but I am not notable, and neither is CU. I'd love to be able to source that, but I know that I most likely can't at this time. That's the breaks on WP.) That should probably go too unless it can be sourced. Crockspot 12:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, you'll notice that, in my last responses, I am not demanding that this single, neutral fact use Wikipedia's voice to qualify it as a criticism. Although it seems a natural place for it in my mind, I am willing to accept expressed NPOV concerns on this matter. How does acknowledging DU's self-described practice of censorship, in and of itself, constitute using Wikipedia's voice for criticism?

You'll also notice that I specifically rejected the idea that the only purpose to the citation was support of an otherwise unsourced claim of criticism for the practice by other parties. You have removed the unsourced "critics charge" claim, and, as stated, I do not intend to fight that -- there does not appear to be any citable source that notable critics have accused DU of censorship. Removal of that line seems in keeping with Wikipedia best practices re: sourcing, one of the identified weak points of this article in the ARBCOM decision. But that does not mean that the citation should not be presented as evidence that DU engages in censorship, when the citation is DU's own discussion of the topic.

I have proposed a single-fact section titled "Use of Censorship" to avoid even the hint that I am forcing Wikipedia to endorse a criticism of the practice, and I have asked for opinions on other possible locations in the article to place it in case it is felt that its own section is not warranted.

Also, I do not know what you are referring to by "CU" in your last post. Is that a typo? Did you mean "DU"? And if so, are you really claiming that DU's words are not notable with respect to an article about DU? --68.54.18.57 13:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but I want to further clarify my argument that existing treatment is insufficient. As I tried to make clear before, the second sentence of the article discusses restriction on membership, not contents of posts by members. The first sentence of the ideology section does not even seem properly constructed. "Although DU restricts its postings to people on the political left" would more clearly read "Although DU restricts those who can post to people on the political left". Even more clear, given JamesMLane's agreement that even those on the "left" are censored, the best version (in my opinion) would be "Although DU restricts those who can post to its members". Your thoughts?

As I've said several times, the existing treatment in the article and its citations does not directly address the question of censorship like the one I'm proposing does.--68.54.18.57 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

CU is Conservative Underground. Check my user page for a link if you want. As I said before, the fact that DU restricts posting is mentioned prominently twice in the article, and the link to their rules page is the very first source cited in the article. The point is obvious: Don't post there unless you're a good little Democrat. This is no different than how FreeRepublic, Progressive Democrats of America, or even PeaceTakesCourage handles their members. It's not notable. There is no notable criticism of this rule, so there should be no inclusion of this rule as criticism. I don't know why we are still going on and on about this. - Crockspot 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, I appreciate your continued cooperation in this dialogue. Question: Is it your contention that "restricts posting" means exactly the same thing as "censors", and that this citation would therefore be superfluous? If so, why do you oppose the use of the word "censor" in the article? If not, why do you disregard DU's own use of the word "censor" when describing its behavior in the editorial feature citation I am working towards?

Also, I note you did not respond to my proposed changes to wording in the "Ideology" section, which would restrict the meaning to that which is readily verifiable through existing citations. Will you please respond on this matter? You seem to agree with JamesMLane that membership is oriented around the Democratic Party, specifically. Do you contend that this covers the whole of the political "left"?

Your arguments to the effect that "everybody does it" do not persuade me with respect to notability. Explicit information, using an NPOV word choice that reflects the subject's own words on the matter, appropriately backed by a citation to the subject's own publications, is certainly to be preferred to implicit information that must be guessed by the reader!

With patience, I repeat again that I am not insisting that this citation be in the "criticism" section, nor that it be couched in language which presupposes criticism. Other feedback on wording has been valuable in improving the NPOV of the citation text. Do you feel that the text currently proposed remains NPOV? For your convenience, I'll restate it here: "DU staff has, in the past, stated that they 'censor opposing viewpoints'."

We're continuing this civil conversation to try to develop consensus. I realize it may still be a long way off, but I'm not giving up. Note that my definition of "consensus" does not exclude the possibility that you will convince me to change my views about the importance of this citation, but you haven't done it yet.--68.54.18.57 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'm going to work through and format the sources. Question though, why isn't the Wired article in the External links section being used as a source in this article? There's some good stuff there. - Crockspot 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I formatted the sources, added a couple of sources, and worked the Wired piece into the end of the article, and removed it from the external links. I also removed the first paragraph of Criticism, and the subhead. The paragraph about bumping Lieberman from the news cycle has a couple of RS sources, but they don't actually source the claim being made. There needs to be a source about DU in there somewhere. I was going to just remove the paragraph, but I figured I'd give it a few days at least for someone to try to locate one. That's about it for now. - Crockspot 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

DUers have Abandoned free speech

Check out these threads concerning censorship in Venezuala:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x284219#284288 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x284198

Sadly, it looks like plenty DUer's think silencing the opposition is ok, as long as it's for a "good cause".

This should be included in the criticism section, IMO.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.76.236 (talk • contribs)

• As much as I would like to see it in the article, unless and until a reliable secondary source can be cited making the same observations, including it in the article would be considered original research, and is not allowed. But maybe you could email those links to Michelle Malkin or Rush Limbaugh, and they will write about it or talk about it on the air. Then they could be cited. - Crockspot 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good plan, Crockspot. Utterly shameless ideologues like Limbaugh or Malkin could be counted on to cite this as evidence of rampant Stalinism on the American left -- without being slowed by reporting the inconvenient facts about other posts in the thread. ("Free speech is absolute.") JamesMLane t c 07:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't for criticism from "utterly shameless RW ideologues", asserting enough notability for this article to even exist might be difficult. Of course not all DUer's wear jackboots, but there seems to be a significant enough number of them to draw valid criticism, some of them long time well known members. - Crockspot 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just ran a Yahoo! search for the phrase "Democratic Underground" and got almost three million hits. I'll bet the article would survive AfD even without the RW criticisms. Maybe you could persuade Rush and his ilk to suspend all criticism for a few months so we can find out.  :) JamesMLane t c 14:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said I wanted to delete the article? You're the one who started in on me, so I will remind you that this article is under ARBCOM probation, and is under scrutiny for disruption. It looks like the right wing is not the only wing disillusioned with DU. Cindy Sheehan doesn't seem to be too happy with them either. And BTW, millions of yahoo hits do not make something notable. How many of those hits are unique reliable secondary sources? I would hazard to guess not too many. For a better guage, do a Google current news search (41 hits) and also a Google news archive search (350-ish hits), and a LOT of that is criticism of the site. So I assert again, most of DU's notability stems from criticism of stupid comments posted on DU. - Crockspot 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that I "started in on" you. I started in on the odious Limbaugh and Malkin. All I said about you was to disagree with your comment that DU might not be notable without the criticism. I agreed with your response to the anon that our article shouldn't jump all over a handful of posts (out of literally millions) as if they told the reader something important about the site. A site owner's policies are much more meaningful, but, even on that subject, I agreed that Robinson's recent purge of dissidents couldn't be referenced in the Free Republic article. Only when the MSM noticed it did I include it. (To the anon: For further elaboration of the point Crockspot and I are making about sources, see this discussion on the FR talk page, resolved by this edit when an acceptable source was found.) JamesMLane t c 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There may be other posts in the thread that support free speech but they're few and far between. Just look at the threads yourself. If DU represents the left, then yeah, there does appear to be rampant Stalinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.78.122 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 May 2007

As it happens, I have looked at the threads. In the first, the posts specifically attacking the Venezuelan government's action are "few and far between" only in the sense that the supportive ones are, too, because the thread drifted to a discussion of Fox News. I also noticed that the original post in each thread presented arguments on both sides. Of course, it wasn't NPOV, because the author made clear which side s/he was on, but each was closer to NPOV than most posts on political boards (left or right). Incidentally, I suspect that, in the aftermath of this incident, the Venezuelan mass media reflect a greater diversity of opinion than those in the U.S. The de facto censorship of the U.S. media that results from corporate ownership and consolidation is a more complicated problem, but I don't see many TV shows calling upon workers to seize control of the instruments of production. JamesMLane t c 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• The question regarding Venezuela and free speech is why and to what extent Chavez has "silenced" "the opposition". The vast majority of Venezuelan media are commercial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Venezuela) and are anti-Chavez (http://www.counterpunch.org/delacour07032004.html) - these have not been silenced, so it is incorrect to say that Chavez has silenced "the opposition". What happened is that the Chavez government has not renewed the licence of one media outlet (RCTV) to broadcast via public airwaves, because of the active role this TV network has played in the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez. RCTV still has licences to broadcast via cable and satellite. (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2054) Rpawn 11:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Demopedia

It appears that Demopedia never made it out of beta, and does no longer exist. Rpawn 11:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago the admins made an announcement to the effect, as I remember it, that Demopedia would be discontinued in the future. It's no longer linked to from the main page. I thought about editing our article but the problem is that my knowledge of Demopedia is arguably original research. I don't know if there's anything we can cite for the proposition that Demopedia has been discontinued. JamesMLane t c 16:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the tense (uses -> used), and just mentioned that it is no longer viewable, which is apparent when you click the link. Maybe that link should be disabled too. We could also consider just removing the section, but it might be good to keep for historical info. - Crockspot 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sheehan and DU

I made this revert, because no source was cited. I believe that she did make some sort of statement to this effect, but it needs to be sourced before it goes back in. - Crockspot 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

DU is totalitarian

I'm a moderate Democrat. Meaning I don't always agree with ivory tower elites. I have been banned a few times from DU. The place is just an echo-chamber for the most part for people to spout their Berkley-inspired, "college hippy" rhetoric. It is not representative of most Democrats views and there is very little honest discussion.

The level of vitriol against fellow human beings is also rather shocking. There is gleeful rejoicing whenever anybody on the Right dies, for instance, and attacks against people that disagree with their extremist ideology border on the merciless. People like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, or Clarence Thomas are frequently berated with racial epithets ("Uncle Tom"), or their intelligence is questioned.

I honestly believe this is a consensus opinion: "DU is a highly partisan website and doesn't reflect most Democrats opinions or values".

This is not a forum for discussion or a blog. If you want to add something to the article it must be sourced using WP:RS sources. It can't be something you or other people believe, that would be WP:OR. --PTR 19:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unscientific Poll

There is another name for an Unscientific Poll; woo. Pure garbage. There is a reason that they are labelled "Just For Fun", because that is their only utility. (And they really can be fun, but they are not encyclopedic!!!) --BenBurch (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the poll itself is garbage, but I think the sources in that section do reference legitimate criticism of DU. Perhaps it can be refactored to make a better point. It does help establish notability as well. - Crockspot (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see how to do that that passes the OR bar. Suggestions? --BenBurch (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixes

Removed some vandalism and reference to moribund columns.

Much of this article is still unsourced, and unless anybody objects, I will be stripping it of all unsourced materials in January. --BenBurch (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)